At 11:01 AM 6/10/02 -0500, Eric Miller wrote:
>A couple of open issues come to mind...
>
>- do we formally give a name to a schema resource rather than let
>different communities define them (this request has surfaced from the DC
>community working on Registries). As was mentioned on the telecon, this
>approach may be useful for clarifying the relationship between rdf
>Schemas and Web Ontologies (e.g. rdfs:Schema subclassof web:Ontology)
>
>my suggestion would be 'yes'
>
>- do we formalize the range rdfs:isDefinedBy to be one of these schema
>resources
I'm a little uncomfortable with what this might be saying, but I'd be happy
if we can describe the schema resource referenced by rdfs:isDefinedBy as:
[[
An RDF document containing defining information about some RDF vocabulary
(i.e. about some RDF properties and classes).
]]
What I want to avoid doing here is (a) creating an idea that a schema is
somehow apart from the wider body of RDF data, and (b) that a schema
contains only statements based on the RDFS-defined vocabulary (rdfs:range,
rdfs:domain, etc.).
#g
-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>